For those who have the same warped sense of humour this Letter can also be had in French.
(Complaints can be addressed to the Blog Council, your nearest newspaper, radio or TV station and when you leave this blog remember to pull the chain)
*Terms & Conditions Apply, if you can find them.

Monday, October 6, 2014

In your column in the Sunday Times you told us that the media
is kept on a tight
leashin South
Africa by the Press Ombudsman Johan Retief who is the main adjudicator for the Press Council.

Well I’m sorry to have to tell you that’s not true.For a start he only considers complaints,
so if a newspaper misbehaves the Ombudsman does nothing unless he gets one.

The other disturbing aspect is this. In
my experience complaints get put
into two categories – those from the
somebodies and those from nobodies.

If you are a somebody
such as a member of the government, a prominent
businessman or a member of the legal profession he is far more likely to find
in your favour against an offending newspaper than if you are a nobody like me.

What happened when I complained that the business section of your paper
(Business Times) that you write for continued to use a freelance after he had
been exposed as a crook under a Noseweek magazine headline High on the Hogg:How Jim Jones ripped off his website employers and then spun
the story?

JIM JONES FORMER BUSINESS DAY EDITOR

Worse still he spun the story in your
Business Times to make his former employer Moneyweb look bad (See Press Council’s Brand of Justice – Parts I
& II).

The
answer is nothing. My complaint was
dismissed by Retief.

What happened when I complained that the SundayTimes continued to publish clearly dubious get-rich-quick
advertisements? Alright I know that the Press Ombudsman conveniently doesn’t
deal with advertising complains ,
but in this case your paper’s internal ombudsman
had given an editorial undertaking that something
would be done about these.

I was vindicated completely when people responsible for some of the ads were subsequently exposed by Carte
Blanche, the TV investigative channel for defrauding investors out of millions.

The answer again
is nothing. My complaint was
dismissed by Retief.

And when I tried to appeal against his
rulings former Judge Ralph Zulman, head of the Council’s Appeals panel, decided
my cases did not merit further consideration.

You mentioned a perfect example of how
a somebody gets treated. In winding
up the estate of Barry Tannenbaum, who perpetrated the country’s biggest Ponzi
scheme, the lawyers and liquidators took more than half of the R100-million
collected as their fees and costs. As you know the lawyer for the liquidators complained about the general tone of the Business
Times report headedLawyers gorge on Ponzi cash.

JOHAN RETIEF

The Ombudsman dismissed most of the complaint but decided that the use of the wordgorgehad been inappropriate. His absurd
explanation, which you reported was that even though the trustees may have been ‘gorging’,it was not for the paper to state this
as a factwhen the phrase ‘drained money’ should have sufficed.

Talk about splitting hairs. It appears
that he felt he had to give the lawyer something.

In the column he used to write for
Business Times Steve Mulholland
accused one of the somebodies the
Deputy Director of the Department of Public Enterprise of wrong doing without
giving the proof. After the Director complained to the Ombudsman your paper was ordered to
apologise.

I’m not criticising this decision, but
what I am saying is that basically this complaint
was no different from my ones which
were dismissed. In all the cases what your paper did was obviously wrong.

In your puff for the Ombudsman you
wrote If apublication errs even in one tiny respect the
Ombudsman forces it to publish a prominent
apology.

Again
this is not true as my complaints
alone show and I’m sure there are many other examples.

Also from
what I’ve seen apologies are seldom
if ever given the same prominence in
papers as the original story.That in itself is immoral. Publications usually do
their best to place them where as few people as possible will see them.

The
main part of the Sunday Times had the correction below tucked away on Page 4
whereas the So Many Questions column
that it appeared in took up about a quarter of a page on Page 21 the previous
week. As this is a regular feature my feeling is that this correction should
have been in the column.

I know this was not something the Ombudsman ordered, but it illustrates
how corrections are often handled.

Your high handed assumption that it’s a common refrainfrom halfwits and crooks that the press is
unaccountable and sensationalist, a third force bent on abusing its
self-appointed position as the fourth estate,suggests that it’s perfect.
Well I’m not a crook so there’s only one
other category I and anybody else like me who has a beef about the way the
press behaves can fit into, in your opinion.

In the days before blogs and social
media the only avenues available to the average person who believed a paper was
abusing its position was to write a letter to the editor, complain to the Ombudsman or in extreme cases take costly legal action.

Letters however could be easily censored or
not even published. And anybody who tried the Ombudsman’s route had to bear in
mind that the Press Council’s slogan is: Effective self-regulation is the best system for promoting high standards in the media.

They would think that wouldn’t they? It’s
like appointing and paying the judge at your own trial. How they have been
allowed to get away with this as long as they have I don’t know.

If that’s not abusing its self-appointed position as thefourth estateI don’t know what is.

Now halfwits like me can take to a blog
to tell the world about the shenanigans in the newspaper business that papers don’t
want anybody to know.

Like the results of my complaints to the Ombudsman that I have already mentioned.

Like Johannesburg’s The Citizen that is
making money out of cock (literally) and bull advertisements that even its own
Editor agrees are not believable (See The
Citizen’s Aladdin’s Cave of Unbelievable adverts).

Like the refusal of the Caxton Group,
the owner of this paper; the Print & Digital Media SA, to which most
newspaper publishers belong and the South African Editor’s Forum to even
acknowledge that this abuse of the press exists, even though I have brought it
to their attention (See Caxton’s Bosses
duck dubious adverting issue; Print and Digital Media’s appalling hypocrisy and
Editors’ questionable ethics).

Like the Advertising Standards
Authority, the adverting equivalent of the Press Council, that refused to take
my complaints about the Citizen’s
ads that are exploiting the poor and unsophisticated with promises such as penus enlargement and instant wealth
(See Ridiculous Adverting Standards
Authority).

Halfwits like me can even extend their
blog tentacles across the world to tell everyone who is interested what the
dicey members of the fourth estate are up to in Britain.

Like the National Union of Journalists,
that claims to be the largest organisation of its kind in the world with about
38 000 members, that has given up policing its bad eggs. It did take complaints
from the public about its members some years ago until they became so numerous it could
no longer afford to do this (See National
Union of Journalists’ protection racket).

You can understand why it was that in
this environment the 168 year old News of the World that was once the biggest
selling English paper anywhere had to close after its phone hacking scandal
final burst into the open.

No doubt it was brought down by other
halfwits like me.

When
it comes to halfwits, as Editor of
the Business Times it’s hardly the brightest thing to do to promote fiction as fact in your column in a paper that
is read by millions.

Regards,

Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who
tells it like it is and not like some
of the papers would have it.

P.S. If only I was a somebody
I would have a prima facie case to submit to the Press Ombudsman about all the
incorrect statements you have given as fact in this column of yours.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Given a bit of power some people just can’t help abusing it. Such a person
is Murray Norton, a former BBC Radio
Jersey presenter, who is standing in the October election for the States of
Jersey, as the parliament in this ChannelIsland is called.

My son Simon Abbott died of a heart attack in Jersey
aged 47 having been relentlessly cyber-bullied in the last two years of his
life. And there is ample evidence to show what stress does to your heart.

Norton led the charge ably assisted by his photographer
friend Ianle Sueur.

Simon’s
crime in the eyes of Norton and his followers was that he unsuccessfully tried
to raise money for the trust he established to help women
suffering from post natal
depression. He did this in memory of his sister Samantha who committed suicide a few months after the birth of her
first child.

Norton had the power of the BBC behind
him at the time the cyber-bullying occurred. And after Simon and I complained the Corporation’s highest authority the
BBC Trust took the absurd decision that although its top executives had made
Norton stop what he was doing, he had not been a cyber-bully (See BBC’s FINAL WHITEWASH JOB).

It
now turns out that Norton’s bullying extends to more than just social media. He
is versatile when it comes to this
most cowardly of activities.

Norton says he has now retired from broadcasting after being a presenter for BBC
Radio Jersey and Channel 103 FM. He claims credit for having been involved in
charity fund raising for more than 30 years.

On his blog Stuart Syvret, a former Minister of Health, who was forced out of
office for trying to expose corruption by the powerful feudal Establishment
that controls the Island, had this to say
about Norton.

Murray is a tireless charity fundraiser even to the extent of taking part in
the cyber-bullying campaign of a less successful charity fund raiser in the hope
that the unfortunate Simon Abbott would put the donated goods he received into Murray’s far more capable
hands (SeeDID
CYBER-BULLIES KILL SIMON ABBOTT).

We
understand that Murray took an active part in the campaign even to the extent
of tricking the ill Mr Abbott out of hiding so that Murray’s photographer friend
Ian Le Sueur could take an illicit picture of him.

If
Murray has ever
expressed contrition for his part in this I have yet to see it.

Murray was joined in his
efforts by some of the usual
suspects including the voluptuous and colourful Maureen Morgan, who is afortune teller and dildo saleswoman
(See JERSEY’S
SU-MO WITCH MORGAN GETS THE BOOT).

Unlike
the flaky Morgan, Murray is surely a shoe in
with the dopey electorate of middle Jersey.
With Murray the
Establishment’s future will be in safe hands and the ill-informed will continue
to enjoy the government they deserve.

I always thought Norton was part of the
Establishment. That explained why he was protected by the BBC and why the
Police refused to take any action against him when Simon complained about being cyber-bullied (See JERSEY’S TWO FACED COPS).

It also told me why the Establishment’s
newspaper the Jersey Evening Post
failed to report a line about the cyber-bullying libel case Simon brought in
Jersey’s Royal Court against Norton, Le Sueur, Morgan and several others (See JERSEY EVENING POST – THE ONE EYED PAPER).

Norton owns two restaurants on the Island,
Murray’s and Mash. And it was his fascist, Jackboot treatment of his staff
that was recently exposed in the blog of Nick
Le Cornu, a member of the Island’s parliament.

As a lawyer Le Cornu represented some of Norton’s
bullied staff at the local Employment Tribunal. They were what Le Cornu
described as disgruntled
Romanians complaining
of poor employment practices and an arbitrary hire and fire culture.

Apparently Norton had complained that the locals were work-shyand that was evidently why
he employed immigrants fromRumania.

Blaming
locals and saying they don’t have the work ethic to work hard, is a way of
disguising the fact that employers want a workforce that does not complain about poor treatment, low wages and long and often anti social hours, Le Cornu claimed.

Here are examples of what it is like
to work for a serial bully.

Eduard Brailescu, a chef, was
summarily dismissed in September 2013 after not turning up for a morning shift
at Murray’s. He
had contacted the manager the previous evening saying that his landlord required
him to vacate his room and the new
accommodation he had found fell
through, obliging him to search again urgently.

His shift was
easily covered between the head chef and another one.

However this was not good enough for
our serial bully. When Norton, who was on holiday in France,
heard what had happened he instructed his manager to immediately fire the Romanian
and employ another chef who had worked there before.

To rub it in our power hungry serial bully
refused to pay Eduard his month’s wages to the date of his dismissal.

The Tribunal only awarded Eduard his
unpaid wages and holiday pay, but significantly Le Cornu added, At the time of
writing thisremains unpaid.

Another case involved a Romanian kitchen porter working at Mash who over
slept and missed his morning shift when his mobile alarm failed to go off
because the battery was flat. He charged it and rang to apologise only to be
told to come in the next morning. He
was then sacked and received no wages for hours worked or in lieu of notice.
This was settled out of court.

A Romanian
waitress employed on a full time permanent contract at Murray’s also got the bully’s Nazi treatment
when she refused to sign a new short term contract that would have terminated
at the end of the season. She was given notice and dismissed on the same day as
her proposed temporary contract would have ended.

But as other people have proved in Jersey if you are part of the Establishmentyou can virtually get away with
murder.

Hopefully when it comes
to the election the locals will remember that Norton doesn’t think much of them
as a work force and that they will cast their votes accordingly.

Regards,

Jon

P.S. Morgan recently stood
unsuccessfully for the Jersey parliament, but
with the backing of the Establishment the serial bully will unfortunately
probably have better luck. But that’s the ‘Jersey Way’ as they say in this
cyber-bullying capital of the world where a brave few are battling to get a
semblance of justice from the
administration.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

It all looked very fair and proper.
TheBBC Trust, which is the
governing body of the British Broadcasting Corporation,would consider my appeal. It was against the decisions of three of
the BBC’s top executives that its Jersey Radio presenter MurrayNorton had not engaged in or
incitedcyber-bullyingagainst
my son Simon Abbott when I believed
he had.

To make it even more just I was to be
given a copy of the report to comment
on and my views would then form part of my appeal.

The complaint
was initially made by my son, who died aged 47 after being relentlessly
cyber-bullied during the last two years of his life. I took it up after his
death.

It went through the chain of command from Jon Gripton, Editor,BBC Radio Jersey &BBC Channel Islands TV toLeo
Divine, Head ofthe BBC South West Region and then to David Holdsworth, Controller, English Region, BBC News.

The background to this story is in
various posts of mine such as Did Cyber-bullies kill Simon Abbott?BBC’s Dilemma –
Defining cyber-bulling and DefendingMurray Nortonetc.

The BBC's appeal process seemed perfect until a host of secrecy issues arose. Bias raised its ugly head when the Corporationrefused to name the
Adviserleaving me with the uncomfortable feeling that this was a BBClackey.

I complained
that as a pillar of British society theBBChadforgotten one of the main principlesof fair justice and that was that Not only must it be done, but it must be seen
to be done.

The Independent whitewash specialist
obliterated the names of the three executives, referring to them only by their
titles. What reason could there be for this?

The fishy business didn’t end there,
it got worse, a lot worse. In theAdviser’sreport references to information that
would be given to the Committee, but
not shared with
the partieskept cropping up.

What kind of justice is this? I asked. How am I supposed
to comment on something that is being kept from
me?

The result of my son’s cyber-bullying
allegations that came to naught after being given to the Jersey Police were outlined
in the report with this rider The Police statement will be provided to the Committeebut it has
not been shared with the parties to protect the privacy ofthe individuals referred to(See my post JERSEY’S TWO FACED
COPS).

The same reason was given for only allowing
the Committee to see some public postings relating to Norton which have some relevance to this appeal.

I was kept out of the picture again when the
Adviserreferred to private posts on
Norton’s Facebook wall. Only this
time the Adviser went further by acting as the judge as to what even the Committee should be allowed to see when he/she stated
The most
relevantones will beshown to the Committee.

The Adviser also went to the absurd
lengths of removing the names of people in privileged court documents. I commented that this kind ofunnecessary
censorship tended to tarnish the veracity of the entire report because it makes
one wonder what else the Adviser left out to protect somebody
or other.

The people who were seen by the
Adviser were listed. But nowhere was my name mentioned. He/she visited Jersey and had a two and half hour meeting with Norton. He had already given his version
to both Gripton and Devine, and Holdsworth had sanctioned it yet the Adviser
felt it necessary to spend this amount of time speaking to Norton personally. How independent
was this, I wanted to
know, if the
Advisernever even contacted the only surviving
complainant?

How could all this secrecy possibly comply with the BBC’s Openness undertakingon
its website?

This tells us:Holders of public office should be as open aspossible about decisions and actions that they take.
They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when
the wider public interest clearly demands.

I sent all my concerns mentioned above to
the BBC and I was assured they were submitted to the Committee.
So far I have never been given any reasons to justify the way the Adviser’s
investigation was conducted or why this person had to remain anonymous.

Were things kept from me in the interest of the wider publicor more importantly
the BBC?

Eventually I was given the Committee’s findings. First I got a draft with a warning
that these remain
strictly confidentialuntil they arepublished.

Inevitably when the final version arrived for
publication on 1 July, that recurring theme some
of the wording has been amendedto protect the
privacy of the individuals concernedcropped up again.

But only the Committee
would know how it could have been changed to protect anybody when, as far as I could see, neither
version named a single person.

Even my son and I were referred to as Complainants
1 and 2 and Norton was an
anonymous BBC radio presenter.

The Trustee members of the Committee who dealt with my appeal were Alison Hastings (Chairman),Sonita Alleyne, Richard Ayre, Bill Matthews
and Nicholas Prettejohn. They were
not named in their findings; I had to establish this myself.

They read into my complaint things that were not there; conveniently
ignored very important points; came to conclusions not supported by the
evidence; contradicted themselves and put forward a very convoluted argument.

It was such a sloppy job that they must
have spilt whitewash all over themselves by the time they had finished.

They incorrectly read the following into my complaint and decided(I
have takentheliberty of inserting the missing names):

·that “Norton had said
nothing on air about Simon which contravened the BBC’s Editorial Guideline”when I had
neversuggested this. When I made my initial
complaint to Gripton he told me that
the BBC had not initiated or endorsed cyber-bullying. I replied that he protesteth
too much as I was not alleging this. I told him my concern was about what Norton had done on social media and
that it was warped morality for him
to say that it wasn’t the BBC’s problem, if Norton, who was a freelance, did this in his spare time.

·that “Norton’s
charity work did not imply the BBC endorsement for one charity or cause above
others and neither did it undermine the presenter’s on-air role or the public’s
perception of the integrity of the BBC.”Again this was not part
of my complaint.My point was that as a charity fund raiser himself he
could not be impartial when he attacked the way my son was trying to raise
money for the post natal cause after his sister committed
suicide while suffering from this
affliction.

They ignored these
very important points:

·They dismissed one of two reasons I gave as to why Gripton could
not have judge my complaint
impartially.

They did not consider itrelevant
that Gripton was one of Norton’s Facebook
friends and ruled that there had been no need for him to declare this when he
replied to me.Conveniently they ignored the
other much moreimportant one thatGripton had shown that he regarded cyber-bullying as a joke.
In an unrelated matter he Tweeted it wasveryamusingwhen
somebody was cyber-bullying Shona
Pitman, amember of the Jersey
parliament withparticularly offensivecomments.In the
same Tweet Gripton mocked her husbandTrevor.
After a complaint was made to the
BBC Gripton disappeared from Twitter
for months, even though the Corporation took no action against him.

·They didn’t even consider my evidence that Norton had incited his photographer friend Ian le Sueur to
cyber-bully my son. Norton admitted
to the Adviser that when he arranged to meet Simon at a church he got Le Sueur
to snatch a picture of my son without his knowledge. Le Sueur then used this to
spice up Tweets in which he called Simon acon man, conning items out of celebs and dupingpeople of hard earned money.There was ample evidence to show that Norton and
Le Sueur were working together to discredit my son. But the whitewash Five
decided that they should only concern themselves with Norton’s actions and not anybody unconnected to the BBC.To justify the use of their brush once again they quoted
this from the Corporation’s
conflicts of interest guideline:The external activities of BBC editorial staff,reporters and presenters should not undermine the public’s
perception of the impartiality, integrity or independence of BBC output. But far from
supporting their case I believe it only fortified mine. What Norton did with Le Sueurwas very much part of his external activities and as such should not
have just been painted out.

Contrary to the
facts they concluded the following:

·that “Norton’s social
media comments amounted to no
more than a firm questioning of Simon’s motives
and credibility for seeking charitable donations for the charity he had set up.”
Threatening my son
by saying The Police, the press and possibly the taxationauthorities must be sent all complaints
with hard evidence that Simons has actually done something
wrong was definitely notfirm questioning.And nor were the following libellous comments that made
Simon out to be a crook.I will once again ask theJersey Police
if they have any further thoughts on him. Simon, if you are reading this, which
my friends he might be, give it up, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need – instead of fake events
that help no one, even those of us trying to raise funds.There were other Norton
comments thatmade nonsense of
the Committee’sfirm
questioninglabel.

·that “on a small island like Jersey it was impossible for a
well-known person like Norton to
have a private life or for his social media to be private, but Norton had been careful to ensure that
his various roles did not cross over in a way that brought the BBC into disrepute.”
This was NOT TRUE. He was sued for
libel by my son in Jersey’s Royal Court because of his slanderous
cyber-bullying together with his friend Le Sueur and five other people. This
was widely reported on social media and Britain’s Mail on Sunday, which has
a readership of over two million. It carried a page lead story headlined‘BBC man’s
Twitter bullying campaign killedmy son’Devastated father
claims offensivecomments contributed to son’s heart attack.This was repeated in the MailOnline, which is said to be the most widelyread website
in the world. Inexplicably in the Committee’s
eyes this did not tarnish the BBC’s name.

They contradicted
themselves by stating:

·that “there was no evidence that the BBC presenter had behaved
inappropriately on social media.” Again this was NOT TRUE.

·that “the advice the BBC presenter had been given by the BBC
regarding his involvement in the matter had been appropriate and although the
actions could potentially have brought the BBC into disrepute, they did not
actually do so.” This was the Committee
itself contradicting its conclusion immediately above.

It was a watered down version of what the
Adviser revealed.

This was that Devinemade
it very clear to Murray
that hisinvolvement in this matter was ill
judged and could, potentially bring the BBC into disrepute, even if, as he
thought, he was acting in his private capacity. Furthermore, his freelance
status made no difference to how his comments
could be viewed. He was told not to make any further comment
on any website concerning Simon Abbott.In my appeal I statedIt is absolutelyclear thatDevine decided that what Norton was doing
was wrongand what Nortonwas doing was cyber-bullying Simon. There
canbe no otherconclusion from
the action Devine took and that’s the gist of this case.But in spite
of the action Devine took both he, Gripton and
Holdworth stuck to what they had claimed all along and that was that Norton had
not cyber-bullied my son.

ONLY WHITEWASHERS WOULD HAVE SUCH WEIRDLOGIC

BULLY WITH PAINT
SHOP CONNECTIONS

In their wisdom the Five
rejected my appeal and accepted the very convoluted argument of the BBC’s top
brass.

The Committee
capped its findings by emptying the rest of its whitewash onto the BBC by
saying itacted
in good faith and dealtfairlyandopenly with bothcomplainants. There was no
breach of the Accountability guidelines.

Regards,

Jon,
a disgusted father who had initially been impressed with the BBC’s apparently
very fair appeal procedure, only to find that it was a window dressing
illusion.

P.S.While my BBC complaint,
which received considerable publicity, was going on Norton announced on his three hour Radio Jersey slot that this
would be his last show for the foreseeable future. DOESN’T THATSPEAK VOLUMNS?

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Jersey
in the Channel Islands I thought the States of Jersey Police(Moto: Making Jersey Safer) would be very
helpful in my efforts to unravel the circumstances surrounding the death of my
son Simon Abbott.

How wrong I was. Simon,
who had lived on the island for 20 years, died last year aged 47. All the
indications are that the heart attack that killed him was brought on by the
stress of being relentlessly cyber-bullied in the last two years of his life
(See my post did-cyber-bullies-kill-simon-abbott)

Here I was sitting in South Africa, half a world away
thinking that Police
Chief Mike Bowron would be the right person to contact.

Simon’s
problems began after he set up the
SamanthaAbbott Trust in memory
of his sister to help women
suffering from postnatal depression.
This was what caused Samantha’s suicide
in 2009.

He had plenty of unusual charity, money
making ideas, but it seems that because he had never done this kind of thing
before his inexperience resulted in one failure after another. After his first
few schemes didn’t work the following ones had no chance because by then the
island’s cyber-bullies had warned everyone off by accusing of him being a con
man without any evidence to support this allegation.

NORTON

The best known names among the bullies
were Murray Norton
a BBC Jersey Radio presenter for many years and a substantial
charity fund organiser. His bullying partner was his freelance photographer
friend Ian
le Sueur, who was also a member of the National Unionof Journalists. He arranged for LeSueur to snatch a picture of Simon, which Le Sueur then used to further
malign Simon on social media by calling
him a con
manand making out he was generally dishonest.

SHADY LE SEUER

Norton’s boss Jon Gripton, the Managing
EditorofRadio Jersey had this to say about my son, We investigated some
ofthe ‘Simon Abbott saga’ – howeverwedecided against broadcast, partly because
we were advised that the States ofJersey Police was investigating and partly
because we thought this was more likely a tragic story of a grief-stricken,
well-meaning individual who ultimately couldn’t deliver the events he dreamed
up.

Below is part of a letter sent in
July this year to Bowron by Rico
Sorda one of Jersey’s many anti-
establishment blogggers (ricosorda.blogspot.com)

He and particularly his wife have
been getting the same kind of cyber-bullying treatment as my son got. The bully
in this case is Jon Sharrock Haworth,
a 44 year old convicted petty criminal who has been used by the establishment to do its dirty work. He now appears to be protected game. Here's the gist of one episode revealed in Britian's parliament because Jersey's Data Protection law prevented it from being disclosed on the Island.

SYVRET A FORMER MINISTER OF HEALTH WASFORCED OUT OF THE JERSEY PARLIAMENTFOR GETTING TOO CLOSE TO EXPOSING THESKULDUGGERY OF SOME TOP PEOPLE

As you will see from my earlier experience with Bowron which I will tell you about
below he runs true to form protecting certain people connected to Jersey’s elite. Sorda
got much the same dismissive treatment fromBowron
as I got.

ANOTHER EXTRACT FROM SORDA'S LETTER
TO BOWRON

In an email I sent in October last year
I put six questions to Bowron and he replied through his Deputy Barry Taylor.

He confirmed that Simon had made two complaints
to the Police about being cyber-bullied, but legal opinion was that no offence
had been committed. He refused to
name the individuals Simon claimed
to be involved as he maintained I am unable toprovide
details of third parties to you under the Data Protection Law.

This is a notorious piece of legislation
that the authorities in Jersey use to cover a
multitude of sins.

At one stage it was given to me by an
ambulance official as a reason why he couldn’t name the paramedics who had
attended to my son when he collapsed at a café.

JERSEY MINISTER PRETENDING TO TAKE CYBER-BULLING
SERIOUSLY LAST YEAR

WHERE DOES THE
‘TWO FACED’ ASPECT COME IN YOU MAY ASK. DON’T WORRY I’LL GET TO THAT SHORTLY

Taylor
confirmed that my son had complained
to the police about being assaulted and having his cell phone stolen. But he
refused to name the person Simon
named presumably because of that secrecy law. There were no independent witnesses
so nobody was prosecuted.

The fifth question I put to Bowron
was: Did Simon
evercomplain
to youpersonally
about being cyber-bullied or assaulted? If so what action did you take?

Taylor answered: Your son did
introduce himself toMrBowron on oneoccasion in St
Helier (the capital of Jersey) town centre when
he gave Mr Bowron one of his business cards. Mr Bowron has no recollection of
Simon discussing these particular matters with him.

In my replying email to Taylor I said: Mr Bowron comesacross as
extremelyvague for Jersey’s most senior
policemen. What reason could Simon possibly have had in handing Mr Bowron his
business card other than to get him to investigate Simon’s cyber-bullying
allegations and perhaps also the assault incident? People don’t walk up to the
Chief of Police just for the hell of it and say: ‘Wouldn’t you like my business
card?’ without a very good reason.

JERSEY POLICE SAYING IN OCTOBER LAST YEAR THAT THEY
WOULD HELP CYBER-BULLY VICTIMS

In my final question to Bowron I
asked if Le
Sueur, who has a business called Kandidprints was ever an honorary
policeman.

In keeping with the very unhelpful
nature of his replies Taylor
stated that as the States of Jersey Police was independent of the Honorary
Police that operated in each of the 12 Parishes in the Island
they had no details of these officers.

My comment
to him was: This
makes the Jersey Policeakin to the KeystoneCops. Are you telling me that theHonorary Police
are so independent from your Force
that you would be unable to establish if a particular person is, or was an
Honorary policeman by merely picking up the phone.

I wanted to know if Le Sueur,
who Simon sued for libel together
with Norton
and various others in relation to cyber-bullying, had any Police connection
because if so it appeared that this was why he was getting favourable treatment.

LE SUEUR EXPOSED

He was also the person Simon claimed had assaulted him.

That was my Bowron experience. He certainly
seems to have adapted well to the entrenched code of secrecy that pervades the Island to protect those with influence. He was previously
head of the City of London Police
where I’m sure this kind of behaviour would have made headlines had it existed.

IT WAS WHEN THE
BBC CAME CALLING ABOUT SIMON’S ACTIVITIES THAT BOWRON’S COPS PUT ON THEIR OTHER
FACE AND CONVENIENTLY IGNORED THAT DRACONIAN DATA PROTECTION LAW.

Around the middle of last year I appealed
to the BBC Trust against a decision
made by its senior executives to dismiss my complain
that Norton
had cyber-bullied my son. As part of this appeal the BBC appointed an unnamed, so called Independent Editorial Adviser
to look into the matter. I was given the adviser’s findings to comment on.

The Adviser reported that the Jersey
Police were asked if there had been any police investigation into Simon, his charitable affairs or his
allegation of cyber-bullying made against him. Instead of telling the Adviser
that this could not be disclosed under the Data
ProtectionLaw the Police replied:

Between
September 2009 and December 2012 Mr Abbott made a number of complaints (5) to the States of Jersey
Police, and a similar number (6) were made against him by various people, some of which related to concerns about financial
handling of charity affairs, as well asharassment-related
complaints made both by and against
him.

Charges
were not brought against any individual. In general this was owing to a lack of
evidence regarding criminality and it included those concerns relating to
financial dealings.

Investigations
into allegations that Mr Abbott was a victim of cyber-bullying and/or
harassment were reviewed by legal advisers and it was determined that there was
no evidence of criminality.

There
is no specific offence in Jersey relating to
cyber-bullying but we would look at whether the activity constituted
harassment. For the purposes of this Article a person ought to know that his or
her course of conduct amounts to harassment of another person if a reasonable
person in possession of the same information would think it amounted to
harassment.

The BBC’s
Adviser reported that Le Sueurhad been a member of Jersey’s Honorary Police since April 2012.

But one of the most sinister aspects of the report was this:The Police statement will beprovided
to theCommittee(the people hearing my appeal) but it has not been shared with theparties to protect the privacy of the individuals referred
to.

That showed just how 'independent' the BBC's Adviser was. No wonder they wouldn't tell me his name.

So the Two Faced Cops evidently disclosed a
lot more to the BBC, with names as well, than the Corporation was prepared to let me see.

The Police conveniently ignored examples of harassment
by both Norton
and Le Sueur
that complied perfectly with the
definition of the law. And the proof was there for all to see on social media.

Here are a couple of examples:

Norton:I have
pretty much run out of patience with this guy. I’ve met him, tried tohelp him and he has even had thecheek
to complain to the BBC that I’m
harassing him. The Police and the press and possibly the taxation authorities
must be sent all the complaints with
hard evidence that Simon has actually done something
wrong if they are to do something.
In Surrey, where his late sister lived, the
local Sutton newspaper is tracking him and have been in touch. In Devon the press are following him. I got this the other
day. Damien Mills: Hi! I’m a journalist in Exeter where Simon Abbott
it staging another of his infamous fashion shows. Give him a shout and tell him your stories and concerns.

My
concern is his constant appealing to the ‘wannabe’ mentality of young girls
asking for models for events that do not exist. I will once again ask Jersey Police if they have any further thoughts on him.

Simon,
if you are reading this, which my friends he might be, give it up, come clean on the finances of the Trust, put the
items you claim to have from the
famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some
people in real need, instead of fake events that help no-one, even those of us
trying to raise funds.

THAT CAN’T
POSSIBLY BE CALLED HARASSMENT CAN IT?

It was perhaps no coincidence that Norton
had a reputation as Jersey’s top charity fund
organiser and was best known for coordinating the annual Jersey Charity Auction
which he had done since 1984. This was broadcast live on BBCRadio Jersey.

In addition he had been a Radio Jersey presenter for many years
and was the owner of two restaurants on the Island. So he was an entrenched
personality who the Police would be unlikely to go against on the basis of a complaint from
a nobody like my son.

In court documents Simon claimed that Stop the ConSimon
@NOTJERSEYFASHIONwas set up by Le Sueur. I know this, he
stated, because
he sent me an email by mistakesaying he was
the driving force behind the group of trolls. Ifsomeone Tweets anything
positive about the SamanthaAbbott Trust @NOTJERSEYFASHION
will tell them not to help. He will Tweet ‘Question his past bullying actions’;
‘Discrepancies in the account’ (Yet he has
never seen them); ‘Being investigated by
Devon & Cornwall Police and Jersey Police’
(This is not true) and ‘Simon Abbott
con artist and serial duper.’

‘Fashion
Juice @Fashion_Juice is Ian le Sueur because of the same comments and because the picture that was taken of me
in the church was put on this profile. Again he posts libel comments and has tweeted to dozens of celebrities telling them not to support the
Samantha Abbott Trust.

THAT CAN’T
POSSIBLY BE CALLED HARASSMENT CAN IT?

When the BBC’s adviser asked Le Sueur if he had put the photograph of Simon, that he snatched in a church at
Norton’s behest,
on social media he said he could not remember.

Le Sueur’s Norton connection plus his close
association with the Police no doubt ensured his immunity from prosecution in this case.

twitter

tweet

About Me

I was born in South Africa just before the Boer War whenever that was?
Started life with a golden spoon in my mouth which made eating rather difficult as a result I was under nourished as a child.
Went to a posh school where I only got moved up a class when my old man donated another sight screen for the cricket pitch.
Career prospects were dismal and I was once turned down for a job in the London sewers. "Too highly qualified;"that’s what they said.
I became a journalist when the Police Force wouldn’t have me.
Like most journos I know nothing about everything but I still write about it.
I decided to have my own blog so I wouldn't have to drink with the editor for hours on end to get my stuff published when according to my independent assessment it’s always of great news value.
My religious beliefs are: You only die once so remember, "You can’t be serious and Have Fun."
NEWS FLASH: I've just been appointed the Poor Man's Press Ombudsman by Presidential Decree (Not to be confused with the PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA'S, SA Press Ombudsman)